12 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
M. D. Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company, a Division of American Biltrite, Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence2020Silence or passive conduct of the defendant is not deemed fraudulent, unless the relationship of the parties imposes a duty upon the defendant to make disclosure. 777 F. Supp. 2d at 1230 (quoting Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co., 576 F.2d 248, 250 (9th Cir. 1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblygreen2 sentences2018Rev. 587 , 587-88 (2011) (footnotes omitted); see also Twombly , 550 U.S. at 573 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (" Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules requires that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' The Rule did not come about by happenstance, and its language is not inadvertent. [In contrast to hypertechnical English pleading rules, the Rule intended to set forth] a pleading standard that was easy for the common litigant to understand and sufficed to put the defendant on notice as to the nature of the claim 2018Rev. 587 , 587-88 (2011) (footnotes omitted); see also Twombly , 550 U.S. at 573 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (" Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules requires that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' The Rule did not come about by happenstance, and its language is not inadvertent. [In contrast to hypertechnical English pleading rules, the Rule intended to set forth] a pleading standard that was easy for the common litigant to understand and sufficed to put the defendant on notice as to the nature of the claim | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Planning Commission of the County of Hawaiigreen2 sentences2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Professional Coatings Corp.green2 sentences2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass'ngreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 403 , 343 N.E.2d 278, 283 , 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 642 (1975). 2008See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 403 , 343 N.E.2d 278, 283 , 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 642 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Hall v. State, 7 Haw.App. 274, 280 , 756 P.2d 1048, 1053 (1988) (“[Sjince in deciding the Motion To Dismiss, which was entitled alternatively as a motion for summary judgment, matters outside the pleading were considered by the lower court, the court really granted summary judgment under Rule 56, HRCP, and not a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), HRCP”). 2007See also Hall v. State, 7 Haw.App. 274, 280 , 756 P.2d 1048, 1053 (1988) (“[Sjince in deciding the Motion To Dismiss, which was entitled alternatively as a motion for summary judgment, matters outside the pleading were considered by the lower court, the court really granted summary judgment under Rule 56, HRCP, and not a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), HRCP”). | 1 | 1 |
Foytik v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2001See id. ("If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided by Rule 56[.]”); see also Foytik v. Chandler, 88 Hawai'i 307, 313-14 , 966 P.2d 619, 625-26 (1998). 19 . 2001See id. ("If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided by Rule 56[.]”); see also Foytik v. Chandler, 88 Hawai'i 307, 313-14 , 966 P.2d 619, 625-26 (1998). 19 . | 1 | 1 |
Baldeviso v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1978The controlling question before this court is whether the pleadings, affidavits and any other matters on record, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw. 125, 127-28 , 504 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1972), and whether the appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1978The controlling question before this court is whether the pleadings, affidavits and any other matters on record, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw. 125, 127-28 , 504 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1972), and whether the appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd.
green
2 sentences2014In contrast, the majority in Davis held that “the pleading requirement [set forth in HMA was] based on differences in the nature of the underlying cause of action.” Davis, 122 Hawai'i at 437 n. 26, 228 P.3d at 317 n. 26 (emphasis added) (majority opinion). 2014In contrast, the majority in Davis held that “the pleading requirement [set forth in HMA was] based on differences in the nature of the underlying cause of action.” Davis, 122 Hawai'i at 437 n. 26, 228 P.3d at 317 n. 26 (emphasis added) (majority opinion). | 2 | 2010–2014 |
Nozawa v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3.
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 342, 418 P.3d at 1198 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon
green
1 sentence2020Silence or passive conduct of the defendant is not deemed fraudulent, unless the relationship of the parties imposes a duty upon the defendant to make disclosure. 777 F. Supp. 2d at 1230 (quoting Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co., 576 F.2d 248, 250 (9th Cir. 1978)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pavsek v. Sandvold
green
2 sentences2018The Circuit Court cited Pavsek v. Sandvold , 127 Hawai'i 390 , 403, 279 P.3d 55 , 68 (App. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo , 143 Hawai'i 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), wherein this court affirmed the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim stating, "[t]o prove unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that he or she conferred a benefit upon the opposing party and that the retention of that benefit would be unjust". 2018The Circuit Court cited Pavsek v. Sandvold , 127 Hawai'i 390 , 403, 279 P.3d 55 , 68 (App. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo , 143 Hawai'i 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), wherein this court affirmed the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim stating, "[t]o prove unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that he or she conferred a benefit upon the opposing party and that the retention of that benefit would be unjust". | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo.
green
2 sentences2018The Circuit Court cited Pavsek v. Sandvold , 127 Hawai'i 390 , 403, 279 P.3d 55 , 68 (App. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo , 143 Hawai'i 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), wherein this court affirmed the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim stating, "[t]o prove unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that he or she conferred a benefit upon the opposing party and that the retention of that benefit would be unjust". 2018The Circuit Court cited Pavsek v. Sandvold , 127 Hawai'i 390 , 403, 279 P.3d 55 , 68 (App. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo , 143 Hawai'i 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), wherein this court affirmed the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim stating, "[t]o prove unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that he or she conferred a benefit upon the opposing party and that the retention of that benefit would be unjust". | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hall v. Kim
green
2 sentences2018We first interpreted HRCP Rule 8(a) in Hall v. Kim , 53 Haw. 215 , 491 P.2d 541 (1971), where we explained the principles underlying the rule and motions to dismiss: H.R.C.P., Rule 8(a)(1) provides that a pleading for claim of relief shall contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' It is also to be noted that Rule 8(f) reads: 'All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' .... 2018We first interpreted HRCP Rule 8(a) in Hall v. Kim , 53 Haw. 215 , 491 P.2d 541 (1971), where we explained the principles underlying the rule and motions to dismiss: H.R.C.P., Rule 8(a)(1) provides that a pleading for claim of relief shall contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' It is also to be noted that Rule 8(f) reads: 'All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' .... | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hawaii Medical Ass'n v. Hawaii Medical Service Ass'n
green
1 sentence2010Thus, according to the majority, the pleading requirement of HMA "is based on the differences in the nature of the underlying causes of action." Id. at ___, 228 P.3d at 317 n. 26. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 2010See Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 399 , 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (“Pleadings should not be construed technically when determining what the pleader is attempting to set forth but should be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice.”) (Citation omitted.); Perry v. Planning Comm’n, 62 Haw. 666, 685 , 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980) (“Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as ‘simplified notice pleading.’ Its function is to give opposing parties ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” (Quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bower v. Union Texas Petroleum Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1983Bower v. Union Texas Petroleum Corp., 429 F.Supp. 77 (W.D. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Au v. Au
green
1 sentence1982We have found, “[i]n certain circumstances, a motion to dismiss may be treated as one for summary judgment.” Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 212 , 626 P.2d 173, 176 , aff'd on recon., 63 Haw. 263 , 626 P.2d 181 (1981). *629 Rule 12(b) states, inter alia: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonabl | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Au v. Au
green
2 sentences1982We have found, “[i]n certain circumstances, a motion to dismiss may be treated as one for summary judgment.” Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 212 , 626 P.2d 173, 176 , aff'd on recon., 63 Haw. 263 , 626 P.2d 181 (1981). *629 Rule 12(b) states, inter alia: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonabl 1982We have found, “[i]n certain circumstances, a motion to dismiss may be treated as one for summary judgment.” Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 212 , 626 P.2d 173, 176 , aff'd on recon., 63 Haw. 263 , 626 P.2d 181 (1981). *629 Rule 12(b) states, inter alia: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonabl | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gonsalves v. FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD.
green
1 sentence1982Thus, in Gonsalves v. First Insurance Co., 55 Haw. 155, 516 , P.2d 720 (1973), we held that where the trial court considered a memorandum of law and a supporting affidavit in determining the merits of the motion, the order granting the motion was one for summary judgment and not on a motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.